MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548524200 · doi:10.15353/lsuj.v1i0.121

Terrorism and Anti-Terrorism Legislation in Canada

2016· article· en· W2548524200 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Amanda Spitzig

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Studies Undergraduate Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismLegislationSpan (engineering)DemocracyCharterGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPolitical scienceLife spanLawEngineeringPhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<span id="docs-internal-guid-7857b3e8-90ad-08d2-6f26-3101c7712dac"><span>The events of September 11, 2001 drastically altered the political climate in North America. The atmosphere of fear, mainly instilled by the hegemonic influence of American mass media outlets and government, allowed the Canadian government to take advantage of citizen unease and pass controversial legislation, such as the </span><span>Anti-Terrorism Act</span><span> (2001) and the </span><span>Combating Terrorism Act</span><span> (2013). This critical analysis attempts to divulge into the root meaning of “terror” in order to unpack the motivations of terrorism, and understand how it really operates. Particular attention is placed on the role of the media and the Canadian and American governments in instilling a psychological phenomenon of terror into society. This article seeks to answer whether terrorism poses any real threat to North Americans, and whether the legislation passed by the Canadian government stands up to the </span><span>Charter of Rights and Freedoms</span><span> and democracy itself.</span></span>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLegal Studies Undergraduate JournalSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207